‘What is needed is a paradigm shift in the thinking of global leaders, one which puts emphasis on people and not on profits especially for the military-industrial complex which rakes in billions at the expense of human development.’
CAUTIOUS optimism is a term used to describe a situation in which there is the probability that some good could emanate from an otherwise hopeless situation. The recent G20 Summit does offer some hope that something positive could result from a forum of rich countries which regrettably in the past was characterized more for its rhetoric and empty declarations rather than any meaningful attempts to re-divert resources from the rich to the poor.

There are several reasons for this cautious optimism. Firstly, there is a new face of the US in the presidency of Barack Obama who is expected to take a much more enlightened position in relation to developing countries. President Obama, speaking at the G20 Summit remarked that his administration was prepared to represent the interests of those who do not have a voice in the G20 Summit but who suffer immensely from the global financial crisis which affected countries from both the developing and the developed world including that of the United States of America and Japan, two of the largest economies in the world..

The Summit agreed on the need to address extreme poverty as part of the global recovery process. In this regard, the G20 Summit announced a US$50 billion for low-income countries and a further US$100 billion in ‘lending to’ for Development Banks. The Summit also agreed to give developing countries greater representation in financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Of note also is a renewed commitment on the part of the G20 countries to the Millennium Development Goals.

Another noteworthy development was the decision taken to invite the African Union to participate in the Summit which according to sources made a big difference in the final discussions.

These are indeed encouraging developments which, if implemented, could go some way in addressing the core issues affecting sustainable development of developing countries. This however is not enough. There is need to ensure that the money earmarked for developing countries are given in the form of grants and not loans which only serve to add to the debt burden of these poor countries, many of whom are struggling to grapple with the debt burden. Such development assistance must be given without strings attached and without undue terms and conditionality, many of which are incongruent with the development imperatives of recipient countries.

Then there is the need to address the issue of climate change which, if not carefully managed, could have far reaching consequences for countries of both the developed and the developing world. US President Barack Obama has given fresh impetus on the issue of climate change and clean energy and has indicated that the United States is ready to take the lead in fighting global warming. This is quite a departure from the position taken by the former George Bush administration which had consistently refused to agree on limiting carbon emissions and to the signing of the Kyoto protocol. Obama has pushed for US greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 14% from the 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80% by 2050. These are very ambitious targets which if implemented could go a long way in overcoming the dangers of excessive carbon emissions.

The problems facing developing countries go way beyond the agreements reached at the Summit. There is need for a new global architecture in which there is not simply free trade but fair trade where the exports from developing countries are not subjected to punitive tariffs and other barriers. The Doha Round of the WTO must once again be put on the front burner which among other things must see an end to subsidies being enjoyed by farmers and producers at the expense of exports from developing countries. Other impediments faced by developing countries include technological disadvantage, market manipulation, and unfair trade practices in which developing countries are forced to accept low prices for primary products which are processed and sold to these very countries at highly inflated prices resulting in severe balance of payments difficulties.

Then there is the need to write off debts owed by developing countries, especially when such debts were incurred by governments which lacked political legitimacy as happened in Guyana when huge sums of money were borrowed with very little to show for it by way of financial or social returns. The net effect was that the country was forced to carry a huge debt burden the servicing of which consumed nearly the whole of government revenues. Fortunately, the country benefited from significant debt write-offs which allowed for more money to be spent in the social sectors, including education, health, housing and water.

What is needed is a paradigm shift in the thinking of global leaders, one which puts emphasis on people and not on profits especially for the military-industrial complex which rakes in billions at the expense of human development.